12.2010 Meera Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the complainant. .... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-13284 of 2010 ..... Laxman Lambardar v. State of Haryana .... .....Petitioner .....Respondent Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the complainant. .... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-12826 of 2010 filed by Meera Devi and others and Criminal Misc. No.M-13284 of 2010 Cr. Misc. Nos.M-12826 of 2010 etc. [2] filed by Laxman Lambardar. The petitioners in the respective petitions pray for pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences sunder Sections 148, 149, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Hathin, District Faridabad. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Narayan Singh son of Sadhu Ram. It is alleged in the complaint, which is submitted by way of an application on 27.11.2008, that the accused had committed cheating after conspiracy besides had committed forgery and thereby grabbed the land of the complainant, which was being cultivated by them since a long period of time. The application was given regarding getting a sale deed executed and registered after deceiving the administration by Lambardar Laxman (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M- 13284 of 2010) and Rajpal witness who got some fake lady to impersonate and she was identified by Lambardar Laxman and Rajpal Singh. Besides, they identified the deceased Om Parkash son of Gulab Chand. It is alleged that regarding the manipulations by the accused in the papers the applicants gave an application dated 11.12.2008 to Superintendent of Police Palwal. The applicants in their application dated 11.12.2008 to the Superintendent of Police, Palwal had named as many as 18 persons as accused who brought political pressure on the local Police and were thwarting legal action against them. Death certificate of Om Parkash dated 6.1.1995 was enclosed. The registered sale deed with the signatures of the deceased which were dated

12.8.2008 was also enclosed. The husband of the purchaser had threatened to frame the complainant in a case pertaining to some heinous offence. The Cr. Misc. Nos.M-12826 of 2010 etc. [3] accused No.4 to 19 in the complaint claimed themselves to be the residents of Village Bahin whereas in fact they were residents of Village Kosi Kalan and were involved in many criminal cases. It had also come to notice from reliable sources that Sohan Lal was a retired Patwari who was involved in bribery and land scam; besides, a number of cases were pending against him in Rajasthan and U.P. His pension had also been stopped by the Revenue Department. Girraj Parsad, Daulat, Mohan and Hans Raj were also involved in cheating cases. They were alleged to be involved in cheating cases and land scams. It was, therefore, requested that a case be registered and the accused be stopped from grabbing land belonging to the complainants and also from involving the complainants in any case and for ensuring their security. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter was investigated by the SHO, Police Station Hathin and in terms of his report dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure-P.1) he had concluded that the complaint was false and no illegality had been committed. Om Parkash had died on 6.1.1995 but his son Deepak was the only heir and he had signed as Om Parkash. It was observed that neither the vendees nor the vendors had got any objection; besides, the complainants were not owners of the said land. It transpired that the complaint had been made for taking out personal grudge against Laxman Lambardar because the complainant wanted to purchase this land himself. The complainant had neither gained anything nor lost anything from the registration of sale deed and neither the vendees nor the vendors had objection to the transaction. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the challan in Cr. Misc. Nos.M-12826 of 2010 etc. [4] the case has been filed and the custody of the petitioners is not required. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has, however, submitted that the Police has not carried out effective investigation and comparison of hand-writing regarding the forgery that has been committed is not being got done. Besides, the investigations that have been carried out are in the nature to get the accused acquitted. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The primary case of the prosecution is that the accused in conspiracy with each other had forged a sale deed dated

12.8.2008 in respect of the land which was under mortgage with the complainant. In this process they had got somebody to impersonate as Om Parkash, Ram Piari and Bhagwati who were in fact already dead. The mortgagee rights were shown to be sold by the alleged sale deed. The case of the petitioners, however, is that they had merely sold their rights in the land and were not aware of any impersonation which may be there in the transaction. Be that as it may, it may be noticed that challan in the case has been filed and the custody of the petitioners is not required by the investigating authorities for the purposes of investigations. In case the complainant is aggrieved against the improper or ineffective inquiry and investigation that has been conducted, he may avail his remedy in accordance with law. For the present, the fact is that challan in the case has been filed and the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of investigation. Besides, as per the inquiry report dated 11.1.2010 it has been observed that Deepak son of deceased Om Parkash was the only legal Cr. Misc. Nos.M-12826 of 2010 etc. [5] heir of Om Parkash and he had signed as Om Parkash. The vendees or the vendors were not aggrieved by the transactions. The complaint had been made for taking personal grudge against Lambardar Laxman as the complainant himself wanted to purchase the said land. The complainant in fact had neither gained anything nor lost anything from the registration of the sale deed. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted to Meera Devi and others (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-12826 of 2010) on

4.5.20010 and that granted to Laxman Lambardar (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-13284 of 2010) vide order dated 10.5.2010 are made absolute and the criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of. December 7, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge